AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Agarwal, J.
This is owner''s appeal against award dated 27-7-2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Pratappur, Distt. Sarguja in Claim Case No. 27/2008 whereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 43,696/- has been awarded to the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of application till its payment fastening the liability upon the owner and the driver.
Facts briefly stated are as under:-
On 25-11-2007, while claimant Pankaj Singh Paikra along with his friend Suraj Singh was going on a Hero Puch Motorcycle from Bus Stand, Wadrafnagar to his ward, a pick up vehicle bearing Registration No. UP D/ 9539 coming from opposite direction dashed his motorcycle from right side, as a result of which, claimant and Suraj Singh fell down and the claimant sustained grievous bodily injuries. He filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, the material placed and the submissions made by the parties, awarded a sum of Rs. 43,696/ - to the claimant, holding liable the owner and driver for its payment and exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability on the ground that at the time of accident, the vehicle was being plight in breach of the policy conditions as the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence for driving pick up vehicle.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the Insurance Company on the ground the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving licence. For this, by placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd -v- Shyam Sundar and others reported in 2008 (1) ACCD 205 (CG), he would submit that in view of the judgment, despite the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurance Company ought to have been held liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. Secondly, he would contend that as the claimant himself was negligent/contributed in causing the accident, learned Tribunal has erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the award impugned and record of the Tribunal.
Indisputably, the vehicle was a goods carriage vehicle and licence of the driver was valid to drive light motor vehicle, meaning thereby, not valid to drive transport vehicle. The said licence was issued for a period of 20 years, which itself suggests that the driver of the offending vehicle was not authorized to drive transport vehicle, and therefore, there is not an iota of doubt in my mind that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. So far as the case cited and relied upon by Shri Prajapati is concerned, it is of no help to him. In the case cited, learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a person driving minibus without there being an endorsement of transport vehicle cannot be said to have a valid and effective driving licence for driving minibus, but as the accident occurred in that case due to bursting of tyre when the vehicle was in stationary condition, learned Single Judge has held that the driver has not contributed in the cause of the accident in the facts and circumstances of that case inasmuch as the vehicle was not in running condition and therefore, even if the driver was not holding valid licence, the breach is not fundamental in nature and by holding this, the Insurance Company has been held liable. The facts in the present case are totally different. Here the driver of the offending vehicle while driving the vehicle dashed the motorcycle by going towards its right side and, therefore, cause of accident is clearly attributable to rash and negligent driving of the driver and thus, the factum of invalid driving licence has a significant role in the cause of accident.
The next contention raised by Shri Prajapati is also of no substance. A careful reading of the pleading of the parties and the evidence adduced thereupon is not suggestive of the fact that the claimant also contributed in the cause of accident.
No other points have been raised by learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal preferred by the owner. Therefore, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed at admission stage.